Are stars alive?

[Seeking Science]

Life is technically defined as anything that both metabolizes and reproduces. But the more science advances, the more those distinctions diminish. Because everything in Nature is every bit a cyclical as life itself, there is actually little that separates us from our cosmos. Read Lee Smolin's book The Life of the Cosmos. Smolin is a very well known physicist who argues, extremely well, that our entire universe is very much alive. They even turned Smolin's idea into an entire show on Morgan Freeman's: Through the Wormhole...

[Moontanman]

Define what you mean when you say alive then we can debate...

[Tamorph]

Smolin is a very well known physicist who argues, extremely well, that our entire universe is very much alive.

 

And he is only one among many scientists thinking along the same lines.

[Alrah]

According to the Orch OR theory, stars partake of the Objective Reduction of consciousness.

 

If the OR of consciousness is the primary classification for 'being alive' then sure... stars are alive. We can say they have primal consciousness but I wouldn't want to speculate if they are self aware due to nuclear forces within the star or from other factors.

[swansont]

According to the Orch OR theory, stars partake of the Objective Reduction of consciousness.

 

If the OR of consciousness is the primary classification for 'being alive' then sure... stars are alive. We can say they have primal consciousness but I wouldn't want to speculate if they are self aware due to nuclear forces within the star or from other factors.

 

!

Moderator Note

Questions in speculations are to be addressed with mainstream science, not more speculation. I see you have a thread for Orch OR theory. Discuss and defend it there.

[Ben Banana]

Define what you mean when you say alive then we can debate...

 

I think my response enveloped why there really is no need for such a debate... yes? Isn't this topic just like a "how much can we reconstrue and defer from the common notion of this word" game?

[Tamorph]

In the question of 'Are Stars Alive' the fundamental debate is really about what constitutes life.

Smollin's 'Cosmological Natural Selection' via black holes has already been mentioned, but he is only one of a growing number of scientists with differing theories about life within the wider cosmos. Some others are listed below.

Physicist D.B. Kelly's 'Universal Selection' hypothesis says that natural selection applies to everything, including the whole universe.

Physysist Wojciech Zurek's theory of 'Quantum Darwinism' adds to the pre-exisisting theory of 'Universal Darwinism'. His published papers show that 'survival of the fittest' exists within subatomic particles. (Further info on zurek frim his Los Alamos National Laboratory page )

Professor Julius Rebek's theory is that survival of the fittest applies to chemical processes (papers available from Scripps Research Institute )

Philosophy professor Carol Cleland of the University of Colorado, has coined the phrase 'Shadow Biosphere' and hypothesises that the ribosomes that are at the heart of all molecular architecture of life as we know it were themselves subject to natural variation on the early Earth. By extension, there may be different variations elsewhere, or even on Earth, that we would not necessarily recognise as being alive. (Available papers include her summary of many definitions of life in her paper 'life without definitions')

[PeterJ]

Consciousness doesn't necessarily define life, but there is no scientifically recorded observation of consciousness existing outside of a living organism.

 

There is no scientifically recorded observation of consciousness inside of a living organism either, so this tells us little. By the usual definition of 'scientifically' used in the natural sciences no such observation would be possible. For physics conscious stars is as useless an idea as conscious human beings.

[Ben Banana]

Oooops, sorry. My bad. I may have not trolled these forums hard enough.

 

Lee Smollin. He belongs in a house of philosophy-done-wrong. This is getting so absurd.

[arc]

If a star is alive then I will have a memorial service every time I change a light bulb. Not wanting to sound indifferent to a stars feelings, but I'm more in the mechanism camp, that stars and planets perform their functions in an electro-mechanical process. Spinning molten metallic iron cores generating magnetic fields more accurately resemble my cars alternator than an alligator. But the mechanism model is found also in what are unanimously considered life forms. Plants and animals utilize mechanisms within their construct to perform their living functions e.g. hearts are mechanical pumps, veins are hoses, muscles, you get the idea. The mechanism model is part of life at the very smallest biological level, are not genes a chemical mechanism? Then we come to what life and everything else is made of, are the atoms themselves not electro-mechanical?

[Ben Banana]

Let's just take a big shit on semantics and call it a day.

[SamBridge]

There is no scientifically recorded observation of consciousness inside of a living organism either,

Yes there is, that's why it's accepted that humans are not continuously unconscious.

[sunshaker]

Everything that makes us who we are came from the stars, by that definition we are children of the stars,

 

It is only when you look closely do you see the resembalance,

 

Factals, i believe our universe to be an electron, we are made of electrons, which inturn means we are full of universes which are full of stars,

As somebody once said "my fathers kingdom is within you".

[Delta1212]

Why is the universe an electron and not a quark?

[tar]

Does seem to be a semantical question.

 

Stars are born, have a "life"time, and die.

 

So perhaps the answer is yes.

 

But then hurricanes would have such a life.

 

I suppose the question would arise anytime an entity, with temporary and self defining characteristics comes into being.

 

In that such an entity has its own self to distinquish it from all else...while it is alive...and it is more than just the material and energy that it is made of.

[crazywomble]

Are stars alive? This seems to be an old thread, but I've enjoyed reading it.

 

I've no PhD, I simply googled this question after reading the SF novel Astra Somnia (star dream). The author talks of a stellar society, where planets and comets are body parts to a heliospheric sentient being - like the Gaia Hypothesis but applied to the sun. Or to all stars, I suppose. And it made me wonder.

 

Are the majority of stars part of a couple, a binary system? I seem to find differing results. As a teacher, I wonder could anthropomorphising of the different stages of the lifecycle of a star lifecycle be a valid imaginative tangent that lends itself to astronomy instruction? It's not my field of speciality, but the framework seems to fit, and I wonder what the problem could be. It was a science fiction novel, after all, but nothing I've read here seems to contradict the possibilities the author raised. Has anyone else read this book, perhaps someone with a PhD? (I'm still working on mine...grin)

 

Perhaps those "many mansions of the heavens" refer to sentient energies throughout our cosmos; perhaps we are not only star dust, but stars dreaming.

[ajb]

As a teacher, I wonder could anthropomorphising of the different stages of the lifecycle of a star lifecycle be a valid imaginative tangent that lends itself to astronomy instruction?

People do talk of the birth, lifespan and death of stars. So, yes it can be a useful way to think. However, one has to be careful and not actually suggest that stars are alive in any sense that we understand the word 'alive' in biology.

 

 

It's not my field of speciality, but the framework seems to fit, and I wonder what the problem could be.

Taking the language too seriously is the problem.

 

It was a science fiction novel, after all, but nothing I've read here seems to contradict the possibilities the author raised.

Maybe true, but there is also no evidence that stars are 'alive'. Thus the hypothesis that stars are alive seems unfounded.

[Liolixli]

I noticed this thread and found recent activity. I have considered the topic for a while and find it fascinating. I have come to define life as the generation of heat and an electromagnetic field. At least to over simplify.

 

One argument was that stars do not evolve. This is untrue. First generation stars are short lived. The material from these stars creates planetary systems and much longer lived stars, such as our Sun.

 

Not only has the star reached a longer life span and more stable form, but it has generated new life, at least once, in us. Since we exist as parts of the generation one star, our life is star life.

 

In the case of dwarf generation, the stars reach an even greater longevity. The conversion of matter is not evolution, yet the star directly adjusts fusion to survive. Even when it fails, the result is a new star that will live longer and avoid the previous pitfall.

 

I find it beyond coincidence that the larger cluster formation of the stars resemble the same neural cluster formation that transfers consciousness for us. I believe in time we will find they are aware and conscious.

 

I also find that they exibit what seems much like a spore or plant reproduction in supernova. What would distinguish this from being considered polination? The raw material collects and attaches to dust, which forms new growth and life.

[Daecon]

If you're going to define stars as being alive, then couldn't that definition logically be extended to ordinary fire?

[Strange]

I noticed this thread and found recent activity. I have considered the topic for a while and find it fascinating. I have come to define life as the generation of heat and an electromagnetic field. At least to over simplify

 

 

By that definition, almost all living things on Earth are not alive. So it doesn't seem to be a very useful definition.

One argument was that stars do not evolve. This is untrue. First generation stars are short lived. The material from these stars creates planetary systems and much longer lived stars, such as our Sun.

 

That is evolution in the "normal" sense of change; it is not evolution in the sense of populations adapting to their environment.

[Liolixli]

I saw this same fire argument way back. I do not believe it applies. Fire is not self contained nor is it adapting to burn new material.

 

Fire also is mostly associated already with life. Things that were once alive burn. So, it is a byproduct of life more than an entity of life.

 

Grass for example has adapted to promote fire and evolved to resist it to gain an advantage. We utilize fire for various reasons. Oxygen exists because of life, which aids fire etc etc. Fire does not being any of this to the table on its own.

[Strange]

How about the fact that your definition of life doesn't actually describe most living things?

[Phi for All]

Things that were once alive burn. So, it is a byproduct of life more than an entity of life.

 

Not everything that burns was once alive.

 

Fire isn't a product or a byproduct, it's an emergent event. It can't exist unless conditions are right. If iron filings, which were never alive, are heated enough and given enough oxygen, fire will emerge.

[Liolixli]

I am currently at work or I would respond faster and with more detail. I just didn't have time to reach the second point.

 

I am unsure what you are saying does not describe most life. Recent studies are trying to isolate and study plant em fields. So, that is inconclusive. Small organisms are not proven to lack them, they are potentially harder to detect.

 

Can you give an example of a living organism that generates no heat? I see a lot of statements, yet no basis of supporting arguments to explain the reasoning. I need more to work with as to why you assert that point, if I can quickly address it on a break.

[Strange]

I am unsure what you are saying does not describe most life. Recent studies are trying to isolate and study plant em fields. So, that is inconclusive. Small organisms are not proven to lack them, they are potentially harder to detect.

 

 

So you agree that there is no evidence that these organisms generate EM radiation. Good.

 

 

 

Can you give an example of a living organism that generates no heat?

 

That would be nearly all of them. With the exception of warm-blooded animals.

 

 

 

I see a lot of statements, yet no basis of supporting arguments to explain the reasoning.

 

You are the one making assertions with no evidence.